UK Against Fluoridation

Thursday, August 31, 2017

BOMBSHELL: These teenage girls DIED of meningitis even after getting vaccinated… total media blackout

(Natural News) It’s not hard to find stories in the news urging people to get vaccinated against meningitis, particularly as kids prepare to go back to school. Plenty of headlines warn parents that their teens should get the jab before heading off to college, but hardly any of them discuss the fact that some people who have been vaccinated are dying of meningitis anyway.

Most people would like to think that when they assume the risks that come along with getting a vaccine, they are getting full protection from a deadly disease in exchange for the possible side effects. That is certainly what the mothers of two teenagers who died recently in unrelated cases of Meningitis B thought when their daughters began to display flu-like symptoms. Both did not think meningitis could be the culprit because their daughters had received the meningitis vaccine.

However, it turns out that the standard meningitis vaccine that some schools require does not fully protect recipients from infection. That’s because it only covers four strains of meningitis:A, C, W and Y.

Tragic deaths

High school senior Kimberly Coffey came home from school one day complaining of body aches and fever. Her health quickly deteriorated, and she eventually ended up on life support after her organs failed. She died and was buried just three days before her high school graduation in the prom dress that she never got to wear. Her mother said she couldn’t believe her diagnosis at first because she had received the vaccine, and now she is trying to make sure everyone knows that the vaccine does not offer the protection many people think it does.........................

HALLE, Germany: According to a joint study conducted by researchers at the Martin Luther University Halle-Wittenberg (MLU) and the Biotechnology Research and Information Network (BRAIN) in Germany, people across the globe are eating far too much sugar. Involving 168 countries, the study used data from 2010 on the prevalence of caries, periodontitis and tooth loss, on disease burden and the corresponding costs of treatment, and on sugar consumption.

The researchers took into consideration both free sugars and hidden sugars, which are contained in many processed products, such as soft drinks, ketchup, ice cream and frozen foods, as well as breads, cakes and pastries. According to their results, the bill for this global sweet tooth was around €12.8 billion (US$17.2 billion) in 2010.

“The data shows a clear correlation between the consumption of sugar and the incidence of caries, periodontitis and, as a result, tooth loss,” said the lead author of the study, Dr Toni Meier from MLU. “For every additional 25 grams of sugar consumed per person and day—which amounts to roughly eight sugar-cubes or a glass of sweetened lemonade—the costs of dental treatment in high-income countries increase on average by 100 US dollars (75 euros) per person and year.”

Germany, Switzerland, Denmark and the US were among the countries with the highest costs per person per year, averaging €210 (US$281), €300 (US$402), €178 (US$238) and €138 (US$185), respectively. In Germany, between 90 and 110 g of sugar was consumed per person per day in 2010. The highest levels of sugar-related dental illness were found in Guatemala, Mauritania and Mexico.

“Newly industrialised countries such as India, Brazil and Mexico, but also Pakistan and Egypt, could avoid an excessive burden of illness and of health care costs by anchoring the topic in their health and nutritional policies at an early stage,” said study co-author Prof. Gabriele Stangl from MLU.

With a low-sugar diet becoming increasingly difficult to follow, since almost all processed products in the supermarket contain large quantities of added sugars, the researchers believe the way to alleviate the burden of nutrition-related illnesses is via a balanced mix of educational efforts and food policy initiatives, along with innovative technological solutions.

The study, titled “Global burden of sugar-related dental diseases in 168 countries and corresponding health care costs”, was published in July (Issue 8) in the Journal of Dental Research. It was co-financed by the German Federal Ministry of Education and Research and carried out within the NatLifE 2020 strategic alliance, which aims to develop a new generation of sustainably produced and biologically active substances for foods and cosmetics and thereby to make a contribution towards improving human nutrition, health and well-being.

British people used to be renowned for having bad teeth. Over the years though we’ve upped our game. A study in 2015 found that we now take better care of our teeth than Americans and we have much lower rates of tooth decay. That said, most of us would like slightly whiter teeth. It’s a fine line between naturally white and glow-in-the-dark Hollywood brightness though. We asked the experts what their tips were for striking the balance and improving the look our teeth...
What causes yellowing?

There are two main reasons why teeth start to yellow, extrinsic and intrinsic. The former is when the outer layer of your tooth (the enamel) is stained by drinking coffee, wine and cola or smoking. This can also accelerate enamel erosion and not only cause yellowing, but sensitivity too.
“Intrinsic yellowing is when the inner structure of the tooth (the dentin) darkens or gets a yellow tint,” explains cosmetic dentist Dr Rhona Eskander. “This can be caused by too much exposure to fluoride as a child, if you had tetracycline antibiotics under the age of eight years or if you had trauma to the affected tooth.”
It goes without saying that as we age our teeth begin to yellow as the combination of extrinsic and intrinsic yellowing take hold and become more visible.....................

Wednesday, August 30, 2017

Cold Lake citizen Melissa Williams has been hard at work trying to convince city council to cut fluoride out of the drinking water.
She made a presentation to council on Aug. 8 and, at last week’s council, she submitted a number of articles for council to review about the dangers of fluoridization.

City council, however, was still not convinced.

“I understand concerned citizens [like Williams] are passionate about this issue,” said Coun. Bob Buckle at council. “I defer time and time again to the health organizations in this country. Until they speak against fluoridisation, I don’t feel qualified, as a Council, to tell the community that they shouldn’t be having fluoride in the water.”
Buckle noted over 90 National and International Health organizations support fluoridation of municipal water sources.
Health Canada recommends that there be no more than of 1.5 milligrams per litre in a city’s drinking water.

Cold Lake’s water supply is well below that recommendation. The level of fluoride fluctuates between 0.6 milligrams per litre and 1.0 milligrams per litre. Those levels are still well below Health Canada’s recommendation of 1.5 milligrams per litre.
Canada originally introduced the idea of fluoride in the water as a way to reduce tooth decay.
Williams feels fluoridation in the water is forcing people to take medicines without consent.

The articles she provided to council suggested that fluoride could cause developmental neurotoxin that affect the brain, autism, hyper deficit disorders and learning
disabilities. “It’s easy to start the public debate,” said Buckle. “And we’ve had delegations come forward before on this.”

Council passed a motion to accept Williams’ presentation as information, but they have no plans to pursue removing fluoride from the water

A Saskatchewan Medical Officer is urging rural communities to consider the benefits of adding controlled amounts of fluoride in their drinking water.
Dr. Mohammad A. Khan with the Kelsey Trail Health Region conducted a presentation in front of Nipawin council members about the benefits of fluoridating drinking water after their decision to opt out earlier this month. After the presentation, the majority stood by their original decison.
Khan said fluoride is a natural occurring element present in soil but the available quantity is not enough to prevent tooth decay. He said there are many studies that prove fluoride strengthens tooth enamel and protects teeth from harmful acids. The studies, he said, are supported by international and national health and dental organizations.
“As a public health officer, if you look at the 10 greatest achievements of public health, water fluoridation is one of the 10,” he said.

According to the latest Saskatchewan Community Fluoride Data, 61 Sask. communities have discontinued community fluoridation since 1969, while 58 are still involved. 48 of those communities have fluoride at the optimal amount of 0.70 mg/L.
The report showed Prince Albert discontinued water fluoridation in 2008, and is currently sitting at a fluoride level of 0.05.
Dr. Khan argues lower income families living in rural communities that opt out of water fluoridation are at loss.
“Usually it’s the most vulnerable who have these health issues and they cannot afford to go to a hygienist or dentist,” he said, adding that water fluoridation is a cost-effective preventative measure because it only costs up to $1 per person each year.

He said most of the time communities opt out without first becoming properly informed on the subject.
“I know that people do get influenced by the information present in the Internet… there are some scary things,” he said.

Dr. Khan said there is one negative side effect known as fluorosis, which is discoloration of the teeth, that only happens with very high concentrations of fluoride. But he argues there are negative effects of overdosing on anything, not just fluoride.

A spokesperson from Nipawin city hall did not respond to multiple requests for comment.

Tuesday, August 29, 2017

USA - Oconto Falls stops fluoridation of water

OCONTO FALLS, Wis. The Oconto Falls city council voted 4-2 this month and now fluoride is no longer being added to the water supply. Now that a fifty-year practice in the city is coming to an end, the community is having mixed reactions.Greg Kuhn, the Oconto Falls Utility Manager is the one who recommended the city no longer add Fluoroacetic Acid to the water, saying it's bad for the pipes.

"The Fluoroacetic Acid is very corrosive, so it attacks any piece of iron in the system it eats away at concrete so what you see is particularly in our well house is the premature corrosion of pipes," said Kuhn.

The city anticipates saving $13,500 every year by stopping fluoridation.

"We have a huge rural community for school here and I feel even though they may not drink that much water and things like that, it's still bound to help them a little bit," said Stuckey.

Stuckey says one filling from his dentist cost anywhere from $200 to $300, but it costs much less to prevent cavities using fluoride in the water.

"Oconto Falls itself for the cost of the fluoridation, you divide it out and it cost less than $5 a year for each individual throughout the whole city," added Stuckey.

A petition has been started to bring fluoride back, but Kuhn says the people who sign the petition are surprised when he tells them what's actually going into their drinking water.

"They're like wait- what are you adding to the system? Well I’m adding basically Hydrochloric Acid to the system. If I came to you with a bottle of water and I put two drops of battery acid in it, would you drink the water? Most people say no," said Kuhn.

F.A.N. Newsletter

**Translation help: The Fluoride
Action Network is looking for a volunteer who can confidently translate a
transcript from Spanish to English. This work is important, and could help
educate thousands about the dangers of water fluoridation. If you would like to
volunteer, please email: jaystandards@yahoo.com

Latest Fluoride-Free
Victories

Curacao – On
August 2, the Minister of Health, Environment, and Nature directed the public
water provider for the Caribbean island of 160,000+ people to cease the addition
of fluoridation chemicals to the drinking water. The practice was found to be
“legally unjustified,” according to the Ministry of Health. The island has been
fluoridated for over 60 years with no discernable positive impact, but has come
under fire from a well-organized group of citizens opposed to the practice in
recent years. A committee led by local organizer Rudolf De Wit is still
planning to go forward with a
lawsuit to permanently end fluoridation on the
island perminantly.

Poweshiek Water Association (PWA),
Iowa – A water provider serving approximately 25,000 residents in 11
counties in rural East Central Iowa has discontinued water fluoridation, and
even re-affirmed their decision after renewed lobbying by proponents. Concerned
customers first brought the dangers of fluoridation to the PWA’s attention in
2013. After the board did their own research, they agreed that fluoride
supplementation ought to be an individual choice. After making this decision,
they were heavily lobbied by state and national dental lobbying organizations,
as well as state and county health agencies. However, they didn’t hear from a
single local water user who supported the practice, only from residents who
opposed it. Since they serve locals and not out-of-town lobbyists they
reaffirmed their rejection of the practice this July.

TAKE ACTION TO KILL BILL IN
CONGRESS

Legislation has passed out of the
Congressional Energy and Commerce Committee that could waste millions in federal
tax-dollars on grants to state dental lobbying organizations’ efforts to force
fluoridation on states and municipalities across the
country. H.R.
2422, called the Action for Dental Health
Act of 2017, is the proverbial wolf in sheep’s clothing. This bill amends
the Public Health Service Act to reauthorize and add to existing oral health
promotion programs through 2022, at a cost of $160 million over 5 years
for taxpayers. A significant portion of this money will most certainly be used
by state dental associations to fund pro-fluoridation lobbying campaigns in
communities that are currently not fluoridated, have recently rejected
fluoridation, or are considering an end to fluoridation. No town with a public
water supply in any state will be safe from fluoridation lobbying efforts if
this passes.
At first glance, directing federal funds
through CDC grants to innovative dental programs for the poor and underserved
seems like a good idea. However, two vague sections of the bill, which don’t
mention fluoridation specifically, are intended to authorize the use of federal
funds for the promotion of the practice by state dental associations and their
affiliated local and regional astroturfing
campaigns. The American Dental Association (ADA) was instrumental in
working with sponsors to develop this bill for their own
benefit.
Section e(1)A authorizes grants “to stake
holders to develop and implement initiatives…to improve oral health education
and dental disease prevention, including through community-wide prevention
programs…” Section e(2)A authorizes grants to dental lobbying organizations by
making “eligible entities” out of “State or local dental associations,” and
“community-based organizations.”
While fluoridation isn’t mentioned in the
text, and wasn’t mentioned in the ADA’s lobbying materials or in their
representative’s testimony in favor of the bill, it is a primary part of their
Action
for Dental Health Initiative, as well
as the current federal law the bill amends.
Effectively, by leaving controversial fluoridation language out of the bill, and
replacing it with vague authorization, the ADA has successfully tricked House
committee members.
Similar bills were introduced during the
both of the past two congressional sessions, but failed, along with
H.R.416; the
sponsors of which had collected hundreds-of-thousands of dollars combined in
contributions from the dental lobby over a two-year period. Just like before,
with your help we can ensure this bill is either amended to prohibit funding for
the promotion of fluoridation, or suffers the same fate as the previous
legislation.

FAN’s lobby-day will take place following
our two-day Citizen’s Conference on Fluoride. Our focus will be on killing or
amending H.R. 2422, but we will also be calling for the suspension of all
federal funding for the promotion of fluoridation, and a long overdue
Congressional hearing and study of the issue. We hope that you can join us for
this effort on Capitol Hill.
Whether you’re attending the lobby-day in
September or staying home, please stay tuned for additional action requests for
H.R. 2422. With a coordinated effort, both in local congressional districts and
in D.C., we have a greater chance of killing this awful bill. For now, please
email and call your federal officials, and share this campaign with friends,
family, fellow campaigners, and on your social media profiles.

MAKE APPOINTMENTS FOR LOBBY
DAY

If you're attending the conference this
September, please make sure to schedule appointments with your elected
officials for lobby day as soon as possible. You can find your Representative
and Senators' contact information here:

Call their DC offices and say that you
are a constituent and will be in Washington, D.C. on September 18 and would like
an opportunity to meet with the Representative or Senator if possible, as well
as meet with the staff member in charge of health policy.

Ideally, they will offer you at least a
20-minute time slot with the staffer and a photo opportunity with your elected
official. A mid-morning meeting is ideal, but don't turn down an afternoon
meeting if that's the only time they have available.

If they ask what you would like to meet
about, don’t be afraid to tell them water fluoridation, and specifically
H.R.2422, which has been passed out of committee and could be heading for a
floor vote in the coming weeks.

When you make your appointment, ask for
the email address of the staffer you will be meeting with. This way, as we get
closer to the conference, you can email information about H.R 2422 to them, as
well as an invitation to Saturday's conference presentations focused on the
latest fluoride science and studies.

Monday, August 28, 2017

Sunday, August 27, 2017

By SHARI MARSHALL smarshall@leadhill.net....The OMRPWA, our water provider, has been working along with others to get the requirement to add fluoride removed from Arkansas law due to the health concerns and the added cost. Two water districts in Arkansas have refused to fluoridate, and are involved in lawsuits with the Arkansas Department of Health. The Ozark Mountain Regional Public Water Authority and the Madison County Regional Water District have opposed fluoridation based on concerns not just about human health effects, but that fluoridation chemicals are so corrosive they can reduce the life of the water delivery system by 40 percent while increasing lead leaching from old pipes. Unfortunately, opponents of Arkansas water fluoridation failed to remove the state mandate and must now wait another two years until the legislature is in session. There is some hope, though. A lawsuit was recently filed in federal court in California by the Fluoride Action Network (FAN) and other groups to get fluoride out of drinking water all across the country............

After the city council meeting, the city solicitor stated to me as I was leaving that, "The difference in Johnstown and Meadville is that in Johnstown the water authority is owned by the city." This should be explained openly to the public.

As for council continually stating that, "We should go to water authority meetings," it is quite clear that the water authority does not want to hear from anyone who is against fluoridating Meadville's water. Dr. Christopher Knapp, a very credible speaker on the fluoridation issue, was treated very rudely at the Aug. 16 meeting. Watch re-runs of the meeting on Armstrong Cable, channel 23.

The water authority has heard several times at public meetings many speaking against fluoridation, myself included. The Meadville Area Water Authority only wants to hear from those favoring fluoridation, a small number of "special interests" in this community who are controlling this situation. As has been said in the past, something is rotten in Denmark, and I think we all now what that means.

The exception as far as the water board goes is Hal Tubbs, very credible in his comments and motion (not seconded) to hear from MAWA's customers. Meadville, West Mead and Vernon citizens must become informed and stand up against this effort to fluoridate their public water — whether by the water authority polling customers, making sure we are heard or by investigation.

Saturday, August 26, 2017

All the problems with Fluoride FACTS

Fluoride is added to municipal water supplies and dental products, such as toothpaste, to prevent or reduce tooth decay. People are primarily exposed to fluoride from drinking water and use of fluoridated dental products, with water fluoridation representing 30% to 70% of a typical individual’s total exposure. Fluoride is also used in consumer products, such as cleaning supplies, and industrial applications. Workers in some occupations may be exposed to fluoride by inhaling fluoride compounds at their place of employment.

Systematic Reviews on Potential Health Effects of Fluoride

Completed systematic review

In 2016, NTP completed a systematic review of the published animal literature looking at neurobehavioral effects of exposure to fluoride during development and adulthood in rats and mice. The assessment found a low to moderate level of evidence that support adverse effects on learning and memory in animals exposed to fluoride in the diet or drinking water. The evidence was strongest in animals exposed as adults and weaker in animals exposed during development.

The animal studies typically evaluated developmental exposure to fluoride at levels higher than 0.7 parts per million, the recommended level for community water fluoridation in the United States. Additional research is underway to attempt to replicate these findings at water concentrations closer to the levels used in community water fluoridation.

Ongoing systematic review

NTP is currently conducting a systematic review to evaluate potential neurobehavioral effects from exposure to fluoride during development that includes consideration of human epidemiology, additional experimental animal studies, and mechanistic data.

Friday, August 25, 2017

People with higher levels of lithium in their drinking water appear to have a lower risk of developing dementia, say researchers in Denmark.

Lithium is naturally found in tap water, although the amount varies.

The findings, based on a study of 800,000 people, are not clear-cut. The highest levels cut risk, but moderate levels were worse than low ones.

Experts said it was an intriguing and encouraging study that hinted at a way of preventing the disease.

The study, at the University of Copenhagen, looked at the medical records of 73,731 Danish people with dementia and 733,653 without the disease.

Tap water was then tested in 151 areas of the country.

The results, published in JAMA Psychiatry, showed moderate lithium levels (between 5.1 and 10 micrograms per litre) increased the risk of dementia by 22% compared with low levels (below five micrograms per litre).

However, those drinking water with the highest lithium levels (above 15 micrograms per litre) had a 17% reduction in risk.

The researchers said: "This is the first study, to our knowledge, to investigate the association between lithium in drinking water and the incidence of dementia.

"Higher long-term lithium exposure from drinking water may be associated with a lower incidence of dementia."..........................

A number of local activists took to the sidewalks outside of Chapel Hill Town Hall on the evening of Thursday, August 24th, to protest the OWASA board's continued fluoridation of Orange County water sources.

The Fluoride Free Chapel Hill/Carrboro (FFCC)rallied outside Chapel Hill Town Hall to protest against the fluoride in Orange County's water Wednesday night.

The protests came in response to a cancelled meeting set for Aug. 24 by the Orange County Water and Sewage Authority's Board of Directors, in which members of the community planned to address the fluorinated water issue. OWASA cancelled all their summer meetings, making it three months without an opportunity for residents to voice their concerns in a public comment meeting.

“Anybody that wants it, wants to put it on topically; that’s your business. You can go to a dentist who will give you a fluoride tray who will put it in there, but don’t put it in the water and medicate me without my permission,” said Mike Willock, a protester and dentist of 28 years.

OWASA suspended fluoridation after the fluoride overfeed, or the OWASA water crises, this past February. Yet on March 9 they decided to resume with the chemical for some time in September.

“The OWASA Board received numerous comments and questions regarding fluoridation in 2013 and in 2017, we welcome public discussion of the community’s water and water resources,” Greg Feller, OWASA’s public affairs administrator, said............

It’s been called “one of the ten great public health achievements of the 20th century" by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

So why isn’t every public water system in America adding fluoride to its drinking water? That’s a question that has been asked consistently by public health officials and dentists since the fluoridation wars began in the mid 1940s.

And it’s being asked again in Boynton Beach, which is nearing completion of a $30-million upgrade of its aging water treatment plant that won’t fluoridate the system until sometime in 2018 — once all construction is finished — and hasn’t done so for the past year.

Public health officials long ago declared fluoridation a highly cost effective approach to fighting tooth decay. Adding minute quantities of the chemical to water strengthens enamel, which enhances resistance to decay.

Boosting the natural level of about 0.4 parts per million to 0.7 has proven to be a major weapon in the fight against tooth decay.

As reported Monday in the Sun Sentinel, Johnny Johnson, a former pediatric dentist and president of the nonprofit American Fluoridation Society, recently contacted Boynton to urge the city to reintroduce fluoride soon. "You drink the water, it does the job," he said.

Yet many Floridians oppose the practice. Statewide, 77 percent of the water supply is treated. Broward and Miami-Dade fluoridate 98 percent of their water systems. Palm Beach County reaches only 64.7 percent of its population and Boca Raton stopped fluoridating its water in 1999.

Opponents of this common sense approach to a significant public health problem reject it as a government overreach that takes a medical decision out of the citizen's hands. And they question the science behind it as well; fluoride could do undetected harm, they suggest.

Fluoride in the drinking water has been a concern for customers "on both sides of the issue," said Boynton’s Colin Groff, assistant city manager and former utilities director. City staff has received more calls from customers who don't want fluoride added to the water than from those who do, Groff said.

In Pinellas County fluoridation became a tea party cause. In 2011 the county commission voted to stop the county’s fluoridation program after a bitter fight. Pinellas became the most populous county in Florida to go fluoride free. A year later the 4-3 vote to stop fluoridation was reversed by a 6-1 vote of a newly elected majority. Pinellas came to its senses.

We regard this as a “case closed” issue. The science of fluoridation is as settled as science can be. The health benefit is undisputed save for a small but vocal group of deniers. It’s time to declare victory and move on.

Editorials are the opinion of the Sun Sentinel Editorial Board and written by one of its members or a designee. The Editorial Board consists of Editorial Page Editor Rosemary O’Hara, Elana Simms, Gary Stein, Andy Reid and Editor-in-Chief Howard Saltz.

Comment NYSCOFPinellas County didn't come to its senses Politics ruled. Johnny Johnson brought the power and money of organized dentistry down on two Pinellas County Councillors who voted out fluoridation based on the science. They were replaced by two candidates who were willing to trade a pro-fluoridation vote for a position of power. No one needs fluoride. And if anyone claims its required, they are lying. We wonder who lobbied this editorial board and if they reached out to the dentists , MDs and other professionals who could explain the science showing fluoridation's ineffectiveness and lack of safety data.

Three health professionals will add their weight to a move to keep fluoride out of Waipa's drinking water.
Dentists Dr Lawrie Brett, Dr John Jukes and Te Awamutu doctor Janion Heywood will present to a public forum hosted by Fluoride Free NZ in Te Awamutu on Saturday.
Backed by medical facts, they will discuss their own observations why Waipa's drinking water shouldn't be fluoridated.
After 40 years of working in an oral practice, Brett an active advocate for fluoride-free drinking water, remains unconvinced of any benefits of intervention.
"Not only was water fluoridation not reducing tooth decay, but that it also carried general health risks," said Brett

In 2014 Local Government New Zealand urged the Government to amend the appropriate legislation so that the addition of fluoride to drinking water supplies is a decision made by the Director - General of Health rather than a council.
The Health Amendment Bill is progressing through parliament and is at the second reading stage.
Once passed it will transfer the decision making process regarding fluoridation to the district health boards.
Any thoughts of DHBs having the only say without public consultation is hard to swallow for groups opposing fluoridation.
Fluoride Free NZ spokesman Kane Titchener recently presented evidence to the Waipa District Council outlining the proposed process was "fundamentally flawed".
"There would be a 10-person board making the decisions and it would include four government appointees and six members elected from the community," he said
"Their level of understanding of fluoridation would be no greater than local councillors making the decisions.
"Council continues to ignore the call to consult with the community on the issue.
"Under DHB control, fluoridation won't be stopped and soon it will be added to areas like Waipa who have never seen it before."
Titchener is disappointed with the council.

"They failed to understand they have not given their community an opportunity learn more about fluoridation and allow consultation."
The talk will be held from 4-6 pm on Saturday, September 2 at the Community Room, Te Awamutu Library, Selwyn Lane, Te Awamutu.

Abstract
Background There are concerns that altered thyroid functioning could be the result of ingesting too much fluoride. Community water fluoridation (CWF) is an important source of fluoride exposure. Our objectives were to examine the association between fluoride exposure and (1) diagnosis of a thyroid condition and (2) indicators of thyroid functioning among a national population-based sample of Canadians.

Methods We analysed data from Cycles 2 and 3 of the Canadian Health Measures Survey (CHMS). Logistic regression was used to assess associations between fluoride from urine and tap water samples and the diagnosis of a thyroid condition. Multinomial logistic regression was used to examine the relationship between fluoride exposure and thyroid-stimulating hormone (TSH) level (low/normal/high). Other available variables permitted additional exploratory analyses among the subset of participants for whom we could discern some fluoride exposure from drinking water and/or dental products.

Results There was no evidence of a relationship between fluoride exposure (from urine and tap water) and the diagnosis of a thyroid condition. There was no statistically significant association between fluoride exposure and abnormal (low or high) TSH levels relative to normal TSH levels. Rerunning the models with the sample constrained to the subset of participants for whom we could discern some source(s) of fluoride exposure from drinking water and/or dental products revealed no significant associations.

Conclusion These analyses suggest that, at the population level, fluoride exposure is not associated with impaired thyroid functioning in a time and place where multiple sources of fluoride exposure, including CWF, exist........

..............Since Peckham et al (2015)13 was the first population-level study to examine the relationship between CWF and thyroid problems (in particular, hypothyroidism), additional research is required to determine if these findings are consistent across different contexts, and when individual-level biomarkers of fluoride exposure are used.

The present study utilised high-quality Canadian survey data from a national population-based sample that includes individual-level estimates of fluoride exposure from urine and tap water samples, as well as measures of thyroid functioning. Our objectives were to examine the association between fluoride exposure and (1) the diagnosis of a thyroid condition and (2) indicators of thyroid functioning, specifically TSH and free T4 levels, among a population-based sample of Canadians........Perhaps there is no objective world out there. We see and find what we want to see. Opposing experts examining the same evidence come to opposite conclusions.

When water fluoridation was first proposed in the USA in the 1940s, scientists established an optimum of 1 mg fluoride/litre of water. This level was accepted as being the level at which fluoride would be effective at preventing dental decay but which would not cause moderate dental fluorosis.

In the past 5 years, the concentration of added fluoride has been reduced to 0.7 mg fluoride/litre of water in the USA because too many children are experiencing Moderate Dental Fluorosis. Thus the US Health Authorities have been able to move with the times and have acknowledged the causation between too much fluoride and Moderate Dental Fluorosis.

In the 1940s – 1950s, the use of fluoride by dentists was not widespread and it was considered to be safe to add 1mg fluoride/litre drinking water. These days, we are being assailed with rather more fluoride in our environment: fluoridated toothpaste, fluoridated bathwater, fluoridated varnish, fluoridated foods and drinks, fluoridated floss, fluoridated mouthwash, fluoridated dental cement and fluoridated pharmaceutical drugs.

Fluoridated toothpaste is instrumental in causing Dental Fluorosis if swallowed. Unfortunately, according to Rock and Sabieha (1997), young unsupervised children swallow their toothpaste and this, together with swallowing fluoridated water, contributes to Dental Fluorosis. The York Review (2000) estimated the prevalence of Moderate Dental Fluorosis as being 12.5% of the population where the water is fluoridated at 1mg fluoride/litre water and 48% Dental Fluorosis of all types at the same concentration. Even at 0.7 mgF/litre, the estimate is 10% and 42% respectively. Estimates were arrived at by examining all the research on Dental Fluorosis which met the Review’s researchers’ quality checks and criteria. The York Review was commissioned by the Department of Health in 1999, so its conclusions should be respected and not ignored.

Dental fluorosis is damage to tooth enamel and was regarded by the UK Government in 1999 as being a manifestation of systemic toxicity (Hansard, 20 Apr 1999 : WA 158). Seventeen years later, the prevalence of Moderate Dental Fluorosis is bound to be higher because of the increased use of fluoride varnish in schools and dental surgeries. The fluoride varnish will inevitably erode and be swallowed, thus adding to the toxic body burden of this developmental neurotoxin.

Please answer these questions: 1. Has PHE considered reassessing the need to fluoridate drinking water at 1 mg fluoride/litre of water in view of the increased and increasing prevalence of fluoride in a child’s environment? Note that the USA and the Republic of Ireland have both reduced the concentration down to 0.7mg F/litre. Why is the UK lagging behind?

2. Has PHE thought to observe the recommendation of the World Health Organisation and aggregate all sources of fluoride before setting or continuing with the original 'optimum' concentration of fluoride which is currently added to drinking water?

3. Because the application of fluoride varnish is increasing throughout areas of England where small disadvantaged children are being given fluoride treatments, has PHE yet thought to review the need to add fluoride to our drinking water? There can only be one reason for adding fluoride to our drinking water and that is to prevent dental decay in small disadvantaged children and they are increasingly receiving fluoride varnish treatments. Older children, teenagers, adults and those who have no teeth do not have enamel capable of being influenced by systemic fluoride and, according to Childsmile, (http://www.child-smile.org.uk/profession... permanent teeth are not capable of being damaged by fluoride after the age of 4: “There would also be very little chance of fluorosis, even with two doses given in quick succession as, after the age of 4 years, most of the adult teeth [under the gum] will have already calcified.” The implication is that if the teeth have calcified under the gum, systemic fluoride cannot have any influence on strengthening the surface of the enamel organ either.

4. In fact, the saliva theory is currently favoured by dental professionals and researchers and when saliva comes into contact with teeth, this is a topical effect and not a systemic effect. Thus the original reason for water fluoridation has disappeared. Now, the saliva theory is all very well but when, according to the NDNS 2014, small children only drink one-third of a litre of water a day, they are circulating a mere 0.0067 mg fluoride/litre saliva, this being 224,000 times lower concentration than in toothpaste at 1,500 ppm fluoride. Is UK Government via PHE content to go along with Local Authorities spending Council Tax on ensuring that small children circulate fluoride at a concentration of fluoride which is 224,000 times less than that found in fluoridated toothpaste?

PORT ANGELES — Two candidates vying for a seat on the Port Angeles City Council agreed Tuesday the city should eschew second-class status and encourage economic development and weighed in on an avigation easement for William R. Fairchild Memorial Airport.

Lindsey Schromen-Wawrin and Artur Wojnowski disagreed on how to answer a Nov. 7 advisory vote on fluoridated drinking water, annexation and other issues during a Port Angeles Business Association forum at Joshua’s Restaurant.

Schromen-Wawrin and Wojnowski are running in the November general election for Port Angeles City Council Position 3, a four-year nonpartisan position held by Mayor Patrick Downie. Downie is not running for re-election.

Schromen-Wawrin, a Port Angeles native and a lawyer, was a Democratic Party precinct committeeman and recent president of the Clallam County Bar Association.

Wojnowski, a Chicago native who was raised in a Polish household, is maintenance manager for the Dungeness Meadows Home Owners Association.

“I don’t believe that we should be fluoridating the water,” Wojnowski said.

The City Council voted 4-3 last August to stop adding fluoride to the municipal water supply, ending a 10-year-old practice.

Downie, who voted in December 2015 to continue fluoridation, cast the deciding vote last summer.

“I believe that we don’t know how much [fluoride] we all need to intake,” Wojnowski said.

“And given the fact that none of us really know how much is required, personally I don’t think we should just be blanketing it. But again, that’s for everyone to decide on their own.”

Schromen-Wawrin said he had a more “nuanced view” on fluoride, saying the chemical has been shown to improve oral health and that he uses fluoride in his daily dental regime.

Schromen-Wawrin said he would personally vote no on the advisory vote but listen to the will of the voters and act accordingly, provided he has assurances that the city would not put lead and arsenic in the water.

“We’ve been gridlocked for too long and we need to move on from this issue,” Schromen-Wawrin said.

“I think at this point this issue has been tossed to the will of the people, which is not necessarily the best way to decide public health matters.

“So in that regard, I think I’d vote with what the voters said, with my caveat that I’m not going to be putting lead and arsenic in the water supply in a knowing and intentional way.”

Wojnowski said he will oppose fluoridation regardless of the advisory vote.

“People can voice their opinion voting, yes, but people who elected me would basically be voting for my stance as it is currently,” Wojnowski said.

JEAN-PAUL PELISSIER/REUTERS
PEOPLE LIVING IN AREAS WITH HIGH LEVELS OF LITHIUM IN TAP WATER ARE 17 PER CENT LESS LIKELY TO GET DEMENTIA, ACCORDING TO A LARGE STUDY THAT SUGGESTS THE NATURALLY OCCURRING METAL COULD HELP TO PREVENT MENTAL DECLINE.
THE FINDINGS RAISE THE POSSIBILITY THAT LITHIUM COULD ONE DAY BE ADDED TO DRINKING WATER TO PROTECT THE BRAIN IN THE SAME WAY AS FLUORIDE IS ADDED TO PROTECT TEETH.

Very old news first raised in Japan. The population is dumbed-down enough already.

What is dental fluorosis?

Fluorosis is a permanent type of tooth staining that forms in response to high-level systemic (internal) exposures of fluoride, when experienced by children during that time period when their teeth are forming.

During periods of high exposure, the normal process of tooth mineral formation is disrupted. This results in areas of hypomineralization (reduced mineral content) and increased porosity in the tooth's developing hard tissues (especially enamel).

These changes alter the tooth's appearance (pictures), multiple teeth are usually affected. - Color changes can range from chalky white to brown. Just isolated or widespread portions of a tooth may be involved. Tooth surface damage or pitting may occur.

Tuesday, August 22, 2017

By Cori marshall

Clean drinking water is essential to human survival. People have the right, not only to know what is being added to the water that enters their homes and businesses they have the right to understand in very clear terms what the additive is doing to and for their bodies. It is with this in mind, that we are looking into water fluoridation.

Fluoridated water is said to have many benefits in preventing tooth decay. Yet the issue remains highly polarized and hotly debated. Is adding fluoride to our water supplies a marvel of mass medication, or a human health risk?

According to a University of Toronto Faculty of Dentistry, Water Fluoridation: Questions and Answers, “42.6% of Canada's population, on public water supplies, is receiving water fluoridation." In fact, health Canada endorses the process, stating that"fluorides protect tooth enamel against the acids," that cause cavities. At the federal level, the use of the additive is encouraged.

Water quality policy is under the jurisdiction of the provinces and territories, and the decision to fluoridate or not usually rests in the hands of the municipality. It is at this level that the picture begins to form that attitudes toward fluoridation may not be uniform. The level of the population receiving fluorides ranges from 75.9% in Ontario to 0% in Nunavut and Yukon.

When you look at Central Canada there are two very different scenarios that can be seen. On one hand, you have Ontario at 75.9% and Québec at 6.4%. Are the ways that fluoride is perceived in the two provinces really that different?

The low percentage does not indicate the province's commitment to water fluoridation. The ministère de la Santé et des Services sociaux, Québec's health and social service ministry, operates the Quebec program for the fluoridation of drinking water. The program's stringent requirements call for daily and monthly analysis, and the quality of the process is monitored by the Laboratoire de santé publique du Québec (LSPQ).

It is quite clear that the government of Ontario supports fluoridation of municipal water supplies. A non-binding Private Members Motion was introduced by MPP Bob Delaney. The motion demonstrates Queen's Park's commitment to the fluoridation process, it sought to "remove the portions of the Ontario Municipal Act that allow a municipality to opt out of fluoridation of its drinking water once the process has started." It also would see the province offer technical and financial assistance to cities wanting to fluoridate their water supply.

A look at international numbers shows the same image some societies opt for fluoride in their drinking water while others do not. Our NAFTA partners the United States has 64% of its population drinking fluoridated water, while Mexico has none. European countries mostly have low percentages of fluoridation and most of Western Europe is fluoride free.

In fact, the population in most countries do not consume fluoridated water. There is still a debate on whether or not to fluoridate water. There are governments and health associations that endorse and promote the use of fluorides to prevent tooth decay, and on the other side, those advocating for the end of its use. We spoke to experts on both sides of the issue to get as clear a picture as possible.

We spoke with Dr. Benoit Soucy, Director of Clinical and Scientific Affairs for the Canadian Dental Association (CDA). The CDA endorses the use of fluoridated water in Canada "because it is a demonstrated vehicle to expose teeth to fluoride," Soucy said. He added that "exposure to fluoride at [a] low dosage, many times a day, is a good way to reduce the risk of dental decay."

Soucy said that "dental protection against tooth decay is the only benefit," that can be derived from fluoridating public water. At the levels permitted in Canada, 0.7 parts per million, "there is minimal risk of any side effects," Soucy underlined. The CDA does not believe that water fluoridation should be mandatory because "it is just one vehicle for the delivery of fluoride, and there are many [others] that can be considered."

Another reason against mandatory water fluoridation may be class and education. The example of a large city where you have unbelievable affluence and miserable poverty, Soucy said "people who have the means to buy fluoridated toothpaste and have the education to use [it] twice a day, these people do not need water fluoridation." Those who cannot afford or have access to that type of toothpaste "are the ones who benefit," from the process.

The association does not back its mandatory use because it will only be useful in some parts of society and not others. The CDA would like to see the decision-making process to fluoridate based on whether or not there is a real need.

We also spoke with Ian Culbert, the Executive Director for the Canadian Public Health Association (CPHA), another association that endorses the use of fluoride in drinking water. Culbert said that "community water fluoridation is effective at preventing tooth decay even when other sources of fluoride are used." He added that the use of fluoride is beneficial for the whole community especially when estimates show "one-third of Canadians do not have the financial means to access professional dental services."

When fluoride toothpaste is used it is used topically, on the surface of the tooth. When water is fluoridated it is ingested and taken into the body, it that the best way to deliver the fluoride to the tooth? Culbert said that "both [methods] are effective, however, systemic application results in the incorporation of fluoride into the enamel during tooth formation."

There is one benefit of fluoridation, and after speaking with two organizations that endorse its use there not many drawbacks. There are still those who deny the benefits and say there are many health risks. We spoke with Paul Connett PhD, Senior Advisor to the Fluoride Action Network and co-author of The Case Against Fluoride, to hear the arguments of those who are against its use in community water systems.

When asked to make his case against the use of the additive, Connett said he wants people to recognize that "nature or evolution, call it what you like, did not find a use for fluoride in the body." Though fluoride is naturally occurring and there is no use for it in the body he found it "astounding that we would add this artificially to our water." Connett suggests the substance is "highly toxic."

Connett argued that the low levels contained in it, mother's milk offers protection to the baby from fluoride." He continued by saying "water fluoridation removes [that] protection."

Connett suggests that "in the United States and Canada, over 40% of children are experiencing the first visible signs of fluoride's toxicity." The condition is called Dental Fluorosis which is a discolouration of the enamel at differing degrees of severity. Connett explained that "when water fluoridation began in the 1940s it was believed that dental fluorosis would be limited to 10% of children."

The anti-fluoride advocate said that the "real issue is what's happening to the tissues [of the body] that you can't see."

Connett points to "over 300 studies that say that fluoride is neurotoxic, it can damage the brain." Animal tests revealed that "exposure to fluoride inhibited their learning ability and memorizing ability."

The alarming thing is that "51 out of 58 human studies showed fluoride lowers I.Q. at levels that are uncomfortably close to those in fluoridated communities," Connett said. He added that a Chinese study indicated that "exposure to 1.4 mg of fluoride (2L of water by Canadian standards) lowered I.Q.s by 5 points."

I had to ask him, with such a serious threat to cognitive ability, why then are health officials and governments still endorsing its use?

Connett suggested that "dentists and doctors aren't trained very well in this area." Connett is a retired professor and said that you couldn't "talk about a controversial issue without exposing the students to the other side." He believes that this is not happening.

The underlying issue, according to Connett is that "medical professionals are scared stiff, if they lose water fluoridation they will lose the trust of the public," in the area of other health practices.

Connett did not come to this position lightly, he was highly skeptical of the view against fluoridation and only began reading the literature because of his wife.

As you can see there are arguments and positions both for and against water fluoridation. Both sides are backing these points of view with data and studies, one does have to ask about the quality of those studies and do we really know all there is to know about the effects of fluoride? We all want to have safe sources of water and the best way to protect it from fluoride or have fluoride protect our teeth is to get informed and become part of the discussion.